State Of Rajasthan And Ors vs Luna Ram And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the award dated 20/3/2018 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, whereby, the claim filed by the respondent workman has been accepted and the petitioners have been directed to accord regular pay scale of Ward Boy to the workman w.e.f. 1/12/1993 within a period of three months, till such time pay him minimum wages, the workman was held entitled to all the arrears w.e.f. 1/12/1993. The labour court also imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- on the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Barmer.

The respondent workman raised a dispute before the appropriate Government which was referred to the Labour Court by notification dated 6/11/2009. It was claimed by the workman that since his appointment as Ward Boy on 1/12/1991, he was being paid Rs.50/- p.m. and he was entitled to all the benefits of a regular employee along with arrears with interest.

The petitioners herein contested the claim inter alia with the submissions that the workman has been paid a sum of Rs.1,800/- @ Rs.50/- per month by cheque and as there was no post of Ward Boy vacant, the workman was not entitled to regular salary.

The workman filed his own affidavit on which he was cross examined. Despite imposition of cost no witness was produced by the petitioners and even cost was not paid.

The Labour Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that earlier the services of the workman were terminated w.e.f 28/12/1995, when on a dispute being raised, award dated 15/2/2003 was passed by the labour court setting aside the termination of services of the workman and ordered reinstatement with 30% back wages.

Whereafter, it recorded the following conclusion:

"मेरे विनम्र मत में श्रम शोषण का दुर्लभतम मामला है जिसमें 50/-रूपये माहवार किसी श्रमिक को राज्य सरकार के चिकित्सा विभाग द्वारा दिये जा रहे है। ऐसा लगता है कि नियोजक हर प्रकार से प्रार्थी को दबाव बनाकर रखना चाहता है कि प्रार्थी स्वेच्छा से सेवा का परित्याग कर चला जावे। भारत का संविधान इस बात की गारन्टी देता है कि श्रमिक को न्यूनतम मजदूरी प्रदान की जावे किन्तु अप्रार्थीगण ने संविधान को ताक पर रखकर न्यूनतम मजदूरी/वेतन श्रृंखला नहीं दी है जो विधि विरूद्ध है। मेरी राय में प्रार्थी-श्रमिक लूणाराम को दिनांक 1.12. 1993 से वार्ड बॉय का वेतनमान प्रदान नहीं किया जाना उचित एवं वैध नहीं है। प्रार्थी दिनांक 1.12.1993 से नियमित वेतन जो वार्डबॉय का है उसके अनुसार प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है। प्रार्थी को दिनांक 1.12.1993 से समस्त परिलाभ दिलाया जाना उचित है। साथ ही अप्रार्थी नियोजक अप्रार्थी संख्या 03 नियोजक द्वारा संविधान व श्रम कानूनों के विपरीत आचरण करते हुये प्रार्थी को 50/- रूपये प्रतिमाह पर सन 1993 से रखा हुआ है और वर्ष 2013 से आज तक न्य ूनतम वेतन श्रृंखला वार्ड बॉय की प्रदान नहीं की है। सन 2013 से 50/-रूपये प्रतिमाह भी नहीं दिया जा रहा है। अतः अप्रार्थी संख्या तीन पर 50,000/-रूपये विशेष हर्जा इस मामले में अधिरोपित करना यह न्यायालय उचित समझता है क्योंकि अप्रार्थी नियोजक ने भारतीय संविधान व कानून का पालन जानबूझकर नहीं किया है। प्रार्थी को समान कार्य के लिये समान वेतन नहीं मिल रहा है और अन्य वार्ड बॉय को दिया जा रहा है।

After referring to various judgments of Supreme Court it granted the reliefs, as noticed hereinbefore and also imposed cost.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the labour court was not justified in ordering for payment of regular wages to the workman inasmuch as there was no vacant post of Ward Boy available and as such the direction issued deserves to be set aside.

Further submissions were made that the labour court was not justified in imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- and same also deserves to be quashed and set aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.

The plea raised by the petitioners regarding non-availability of vacant post of Ward Boy appears to be a baseless ruse raised by the petitioners. Admittedly, the workman is working on the post of Ward Boy since 1991 i.e. for over 27 years now and to claim that the position is not vacant however work is available, is without any basis. The very fact that for over 27 years somebody is being paid Rs.50/- per month only and that also for a period of three years remained in arrears, reflects the heartless attitude of the petitioners, which has been rightly noticed by the labour court while deciding the case and imposing the cost.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. : (2017) 1 SCC 148 has laid down as under:

"60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post.

In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the payscale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular payscale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post."

In view of the facts of the present case, the findings recorded by the labour court and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), no interference is called for in the award passed by the labour court.

There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.